These days of democracy makes everyone a lawyer by birth right and everyone seems to be an expert in logic, reasoning and law. Even political party politburos/ brain-storming committees evaluate the basis of the judgements of Courts while professing that independent judiciary as ac pillar of Indian democracy. And, there are many self-professed and media-invented intellectuals and learned persons who act pretty similarly smart on the street in legal issues. Hypocrisy as usual. Why an an Indian I should not practice that?
I quote from a report (rather news analysis) on Yahoo posted on Wednesday Oct 6 at 10.53 AM:
"To arrive at their unanimous conclusion that Hindus have the right to the makeshift temple under the central dome of the Babri Masjid, each of the three judges of the Allahabad High Court relied on a blend of Hindu faith, belief and folklore (italics mine) but each qualified his argument in his own way." Before I quote the rest of the Yahoo post, let me look at the bold statement of the post-person's bold assertion in italics above. The person is such an expert in Law, logic and reasoning that the person can pronounce a verdict on the verdict of the Court. Unfortunately the rest of the report shows that none of the judged relied on any blend of Hindu faith, belief or folklore - contrary to the post-person's bold judgement on the judges. The problem is that the pseudo-intellectuals demand proof for every thing that is contrary to their own belief and faith. If they believe that Ram did not exist or Ram was not born in an area of 20 square feet of land now under the Babri Masjid roof, they demand proof against their belief to be produced by others who have a contrary belief or faith. Forget that there were three learned judges who were assessing the worth of the arguments on both sides. Just imagine a person of pure reasoning assessing the arguments of counsels on both sides. Could he have declared that Ramjanmabhoomi is not Ramjanmabhoomi. He could not have simply because he would not have got any proof that clearly established that Ram was not born at Ramjanmabhumi as claimed by some Hindus or Ram indeed was born at a different place. There was no direct witness in this case: could not have been possible. There were many people saying that Ram was indeed born in that particular place based on what their forefathers have been telling them. As against this there was not a single person saying that they have heard from the forefathers that Ram was born elsewhere or was definitely born at a different place. It is so straight forward a case: there were no options for the learned and reasonable judges to say that there is no proof either way and acknowledge that many people say that Ramjanmabhumi was identified by their forefathers while none said that they have heard that Ramjanmabhumi was not at the identified place or elsewhere. The Court has acknowledged this fact and not sided with any particular belief or faith. If the Court had said that Ramjanmobhumi cannot be identified because no one has given any concrete direct proof, that would have been a simple case of rejection of facts.
To understand this simple and valid reasoning of the judges, please consider the hypothetical case that two sections of the Hindus claimed two different places as the birthplace of their Lord Ram. What would the judges say? " Look friends, none of you can provide direct evidence or proof that Lord Ram was indeed born 9000 years ago. So we cannot resolve this disputes yourself. Please go to a war and fight to win or bring in a monkey to resolve your dispute. Your dispute is beyond law and courts". That would have been an illegal and illogical act on the part of judges because the Courts have come into existence to resolve disputes. In the actual case heard by the Court, they did not find worthwhile historical evidence that contradicts the identity of the Ramjanmabhmi as claimed by some Hindus.
Consider another example. I have three sons (suppose) and they are so devoted to me that after my death at the age of 102, two of them claim that I was born in the land below Room no. 1 of a now defunct hospital building converted in to a multi storied residential building with no records at all available on my birthplace and they decide to purchase, with the money I bequeath them with a will that the money should be used for my memorial at an appropriate place of their choice, a particular flat covering that room to set up a prayer hall for born- fools like me in my memory: the other son, 50-60 years younger than the first two, says there is no proof of my birthplace and the prayer hall should be constructed where a fool like me was taught by my teacher. They finally decide to settle their disputes, will the Court by reasoning establish that my birthplace remains unidentified because, none of those like my mother and the doctor or the midwife were no more and they did not keep records. Will the court say, "Mr. Sen's sons, you three are damned fools. This is not case of dispute under law because there is no birth record available. Go to a politicians and settle or just settle by majority vote." The Court will not do so. The Court will hear the arguments and find out the basis of their individual beliefs about my birthplace and give a verdict one way or the other: may be suggesting spending the money for a smaller flat prayer room and another prayer room near the nursery school that I had attended. Do not laugh out my examples: these are real life people's disputes you see everywhere across the World from Palestine to Pakistan, in Iraq and in India. My name is Name Surname as per all record from educational certificates to employment to passport. Then in the middle of my career Income Tax department gave me a card in Mumbai ( I did not go to Court to say that the city should still be called Bombay the way I first heard of the City in my childhood because I know despite the historical proof, the Court will say the Government decides the name of City on behalf all citizens and the term Mubai has a link to MUmbadevi - a Goddess or deity who was worshipped in a temple somewhere in the city), called the Pan Card, which showed by name as Name Father's Name Surname by inserting Father's name in the middle (while I was sure of my Father, Income Tax Department in Mumbai wanted to be sure enough!). No problem for quite some time until the SEBI and the Mutual Fund Industry decided to introduce KYC (Know Your Client or Kill Your Client) Forms System. Now, when I invest in Mutual Funds, they issue me certificates with Client as Name Father's Name Surname and accept cheques issued by the person Name Surname but will redeem only with cheques account payee Name Father's name Surname who does not have a bank account. Before I die, I hope I get the Unique Identification done by Mr. Nilkeni's Adhar Project people: otherwise my sons would have difficulty in getting my money back as they are sons identified as their name and their surname without their father's name as part of their name. They will have to go to courts to resolve the dispute with the mutual funds. The mutual fund may say where is the proof that the son's fathers ever existed and the Court will go by what my son's believe as the mutual fund will have no proof for their belief that I as the father of my sons never existed.
I am not joking. I quote again from the Yahoo report on RamJanmabhoomi. The judges clearly say that they did not rely on faith or folklore or religious belief: they just did not find any proof for any belief that Ram did not exist or that Ram was not born at what is being claimed as Ramjanmabumi:
For Justice S U Khan, the conclusion is an "informed guess"...based on "oral evidences of several Hindus and some Muslims" that establish the "precise birthplace of Ram" under the central dome.
The salient arguments of each:
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
"Whether Lord Ram was born and was a personality in history, as a matter of fact cannot be investigated in a Court of Law," Justice Agarwal begins. "Simple logic is that failing to find evidence to something does not necessarily result in that the thing does not exist."
"Nobody can dare to ask such questions for such pious and reverent beliefs in other religions like Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammad Saheb, etc...then where is the question of asking such an evidence in the matter of religious faith and belief which is not just a few hundred years old but travels in the history of several thousands of years," he questions.
He quotes the dispute of Al Aqsa in Jerusalem where the Far Mosque is "treated the third most pious place by Muslims since they believe that Prophet Mohammad descended there after visiting Heaven". "Nobody even doubts their faith," he says.
Justice Agarwal says the court has "to uphold a faith which continued for time immemorial" and not seek for "direct evidence" of the exact birthplace.
"The place of birth cannot be proved by direct evidence; indeed no living being is capable of proving the birthplace of any of his parents four degrees or more remote in the line of ascent," he says.
"The fact, therefore, has to be judged in accordance with the meaning of the word 'proved' under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists. So 'belief' and 'supposition' are perfectly legal and acceptable states which may lead to 'proof'," he says Justice S U Khan
Even Suit no 5 filed by Lord Rama as plaintiff No. 1 makes no effort to "identify, specify and pinpoint 'the birth place'", Justice Khan writes. His question to various counsel on the precise meaning for the terms "Janam Asthan" or "JanamBhoomi" went unanswered.
"It was inquired whether it (Janam Asthan) meant the exact site where Kaushalia, the mother of Lord Ram gave birth to him (which from its very nature could be very, very small area of 5 to 10 square yeards only) or it meant the room in which the birth took place, or it meant the mansion where mother of Lord Ram resided. None of the learned counsel could give any specific reply to this query," he records.
Finally, the judge resorts to books and gazetteers to discover that the fort of Raja Dasarath was "quite big", and definitely over 1,500 square yards.
"In olden times there was not much demand on the land. The mother of Lord Ram was one of his three or four favourite queens. Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that she used to live in a mansion constructed only on an area of 1,500 square yards. At that time even the houses of medium level people must be of quite larger area," he says.
"The only thing which can be guessed, and it will be quite an informed guess taking the place of finding in a matter, which is centuries old, is that a very large area was considered to be the birthplace of Lord Ram by general Hindus in the sense that they treated that somewhere in that large area Lord Ram was born... however, they were unable to
identify and ascertain the exact place of birth, and that in that large area there were ruins of several temples and at a random small spot in that large area Babar got constructed the mosque in question".
Justice D V Sharma
For Justice Sharma, "the whole world knows that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya where the temple Ram Janama Bhumi stands." Still, he adds that it is "manifestly established by public records of unimpeachable authority" that the premises in dispute is the place where "Maryada Purushottam Sri Ramachandraji Maharaj was born as the son of Maharaja Dashrath, which according to tradition and faith of the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Rama is the place where HE manifested in human form as an incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu."
Citing the faith of the "devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala or Lord Rama the Child," it is the spirit of Ram as the "divine child," which resides at the "Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi and can be experienced by those who pray there and invoke that Spirit for their spiritual uplift." end of report
Clearly Law has clear jurisdiction over religious disputes, disputes over faith, disputes that can not be resolved by direct evidence either way. Law is not merely what is written in Legislative Acts: then lawyers and judges would not have been required - e-filing of suits and computer programs would have delivered verdict. The source of logic and reasoning is not legislation: source of logic and reasoning is human brains of quality that deals only with logic and reasoning. Faith and belief based intellectualism and politics is mostly far from reason and logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment